You're probably right, but why did the same CIA division send him to Niger in '99 shortly after he left the Clinton NSC in late '98 as the Africa-guy at a time when he was working as a consultant to put together trade deals between various African countries (like Niger and Turkey) and unnamed companies?

I think Wilson's trip was mostly an excuse for Valerie to get Joe out of the house.

The subsequent referral to DOJ of the leak of Plame's name for criminal charges, when the CIA knew she was not undercover and furthermore had just let her husband write an op-ed about a classified mission she recommended him for, that was a plot by a faction of the CIA to undermine the President

And when are they going to investigate that leak about the prisons?

That makes sense, but why send such an incompetent loose cannon on a fishing trip?

It's been my experience in business that bizarre behavior is more often the result of incompetence and stupidity than of malfeasance, but the Wilson fiasco stinks of both.

Nice strawman argument; but I still see it as a "you get what you pay for" situation - and the CIA knew what it was paying for with Wilson.

I agree it was no grand plan; but if you want a report that is negative on say, a slauterhouse, send a vegan. If you want a report that will downplay Iraq's shopping habits in Africa (and thereby your agency's incompetence for not spotting it sooner), send someone opposed to the war. Someone very unlikely to dig up any information that would justify the war.

I don't think the CIA ever planned this to work out the way it did - they just wanted a CYA report. What they got was a loose cannon and an oped that they can not now explain.

I added a link at the beginning. I assume it addresses your "strawman" comment? From the link: "The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft." I think the fact that Wilson reported something contrary to his biases argues for the latter.

Fundamental to a good strawman to add things like the link - and your "odd. Extremely odd" comment. But seriously, I love a good strawman, use em all the time, no offense intended.

However, Wilson's report is irrelevant when it comes to what the CIA was up to in hiring him. He had to, at least, appear to be a free agent. They did not write it for him, this was just a percentages game. So even Wilson managed to stumble across something suspicious, big deal. The CIA's game was still to hire someone unlikely to dig real hard - which they got. Someone whose known preconceptions would tend to make him less suspicious of Iraq's activities - which they got. What they miscalculated was how far Wilson would carry the game - and how much he would... embellish.

Basically, I agree with you - but not your tone. A "brilliant covert action against the White House" is clearly a malevolent thing of evil. While "inept intelligence tradecraft" is sort of sad and pathetic. Your "headline" - "Why Wilson's Trip Was Probably Not a Plot" misses the point that it was, in fact, a plot. A plot to mislead the WH and lie to the American people. Maybe not to bring down the President, but still malevolent in my book.

• The CIA's game was still to hire someone unlikely to dig real hard - which they got.

Still playin' loose with the fact eh, Rick? Ever get to my question?

Old Dad:

• That makes sense, but why send such an incompetent loose cannon on a fishing trip?

  It's been my experience in business that bizarre behavior is more often the result of incompetence and stupidity than of malfeasance, but the Wilson fiasco stinks of both.

No, maybe it was because Joseph Wilson was only considered a loose canon until he wrote that op-ed piece, and only by those who would rather see him silent. His career as an ambassador and involvement with the National Security Council, and a 'True American Hero' according to Bush Sr. speaks far more about his credibility than a bunch of vague (that means, difficult to track down) accusations.

What you call 'bizarre behavior' could be anyone who's had their good work discredited, wife's career destroyed, and see his name smeared. Who wouldn't want to lash out back at some of these people? Don't people actually care about honesty, truth, and clarity anymore?

But the simple truth is, Wilson's report was truthful. His op-ed piece was truthful. The reasons for his going had more to do his involvement in African policy with the NSC and his valuable contacts there.

Evaluate it only on the facts that can be verified, not the lies, and the picture becomes so much clearer.

Wow, rabit. Do you tie your own shoes?

Not only was the poster's mention of bizarre behavior a reference to the CIA rather than Wilson, but Wilson's own bizarre behavior preceded (came before)any pushback from the White House. Try to keep a simple time line in your head:

1) Wilson returns, writes critical and truth-challenged op-ed.

2) White House in response begins effort to mitigate (that means lessen) the damage by pointing out Wilson's link to CYA. I mean, CIA of course.

Have your mom or nanny or whatever read your stuff before you hit Post.

spongeworthy:

1) Wilson returns, writes critical and truth-challenged op-ed.

Truth-challenged in what way. Name one because I'm honestly curious. C'mon, think for yourself. It won't hurt, much.

2) White House in response begins effort to mitigate (that means lessen) the damage by pointing out Wilson's link to CYA. I mean, CIA of course.

And you support the Federal Government from violating an Individuals constitutional rights? That's a very dangerous line to cross.

What sort of conservative are you?

G. Gordon Liddy said that he once discussed a plan to kill a journalist critical of the Nixon Administration with Howard Hunt. How does that make you feel? Outraged? Giddy with excitement? Got your nipples all hard?

Confront an honest person with the truth and they might argue with you but eventually come to see things your way. Confront a criminal with the truth and they'll punch you in the face and run. When an administration breaks laws to silence a critic, you know they've got something to hide.

Have your mom or nanny or whatever read your stuff before you hit Post.

Heh. Do you write your own jokes?

Hey rabit, how ya been?

I see you are still sticking to the Wilson did not lie bit. Like I said last time we did this, read a newspaper... like today's NY Post, for example.

I am sure you will be the last man standing on the Wilson's an honest man front - more power to you.

BTW - What lies? How about Cheney's involvement. Or his wife's involvement - oops, she's covert (except in the sense that she does NOT meet the legal definition) - small point. OK, he claims to have seen documents that he never did. Wilson himself agrees that he "misspoke" on this occasion. He says tomato, I say liar.

Hmm, something just occured to me. Rabit, you don't happen to work for the CIA, do you?

If I just blew your cover, I am mighty awful sorry.

• I see you are still sticking to the Wilson did not lie bit. Like I said last time we did this, read a newspaper... like today's NY Post, for example.

Because nobody has been able to convince me Wilson is a liar yet and I prefer truth to lies. Oh, and why would I want to read a newspaper that, according to Pace University, is the lowest rated paper published in New York in terms of credibility.

• BTW - What lies? How about Cheney's involvement.

Read the indictment for yourself. It's all there.

• Or his wife's involvement - oops, she's covert (except in the sense that she does NOT meet the legal definition) - small point.

Explain the legal definition and how she does not meet it. Small point? Should be easy to state.

Let me repeat Fitzgerald's words since you don't seem to get it;

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Maintaining that sort of secrecy is not easy, and the White House wiped it away in a vindictive act. A person who was an expert in WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Someone charged with the task of risking their own life to keep the country safe. Am I getting through to you?

• he claims to have seen documents that he never did.

Here's Wilson's answer to that;

I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN.

More...

• Hmm, something just occured to me. Rabit, you don't happen to work for the CIA, do you?

  If I just blew your cover, I am mighty awful sorry.

Heh, wow! That's actually kind of a compliment. Thank you, but no. If I was with the CIA, I'd probably have better things to do that argue on blogs. ;)

What Joe said:
“The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).”

What former CIA director George J. Tenet said:
"we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials."

At the very least Wilson was wrong and was overstating his report’s significance in the scheme of things. It graduates to being a lie because Wilson continued to exaggerate his report’s importance by saying things like this on Meet the Depressed, “The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.” I realize this begins to touch upon my rule of saying what you believe to be true is not a lie. But if Wilson knows the VP received a report then Tenet is lying (something I could believe). Which puts this all back on the CIA. Further, if Wilson knows this, he needs to produce proof – now that would be explosive!

What Joe said:
Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me." and "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

What the Senate intelligence committee said:
"interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip.” and noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

What Joe said:
Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." He also states the same thing in his oped, while also acknowledging that he never personally saw the documents – great reporting. In the oped he attributes his knowledge of the documents “to news accounts (that) have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors”.

What the Senate intelligence committee said:
Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

Wilson admitted that he had misspoken. Because he should not even have known the names and dates, let alone that they were wrong. It is my understanding that Pincus still feels that Wilson misled him on this point. Or gee, maybe he had seen the documents… after all, even if rabit doesn’t; Joe’s wife does work for the CIA.

• At the very least Wilson was wrong and was overstating his report’s significance in the scheme of things.

Well, let's just say that Wilson may have been mislead on the importance of his mission to Niger and incorrectly thought his findings would be relayed to the vice-president, but that's not a smoking gun. Here's the full statement by George Tenet. Notice the part that says "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President." Wilson was right.

• What Joe said: Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me." and "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

  What the Senate intelligence committee said:
  "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip.” and noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Here is what wikipedia says on the matter;

Several high ranking CIA officials disputed this claim, however, and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. Wilson wrote: "Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter."

Others argue that Wilson has said that his wife did not authorize the trip and that he cannot speak about the details. The Senate intelligence committee report and other sources seem to confirm that Plame gave her husband a positive recommendation. However, they also confirm that she did not personally authorize the trip, contrary to what Matthew Cooper reports having been told by Karl Rove.

Sorry, but there isn't strong enough evidence here to call Wilson a liar. You will have to work harder.

• What Joe said: Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." He also states the same thing in his oped, while also acknowledging that he never personally saw the documents – great reporting. In the oped he attributes his knowledge of the documents “to news accounts (that) have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors”.

  What the Senate intelligence committee said:
  Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

Repeated from an earlier reply above, since you either didn't read or have severe reading comprehension issues.

Wilson states:

I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN.

Read more for yourself

• Wilson admitted that he had misspoken. Because he should not even have known the names and dates, let alone that they were wrong. It is my understanding that Pincus still feels that Wilson misled him on this point. Or gee, maybe he had seen the documents… after all, even if rabit doesn’t; Joe’s wife does work for the CIA.

Read.

Now, why would Wilson undermine his own message on something that can be so easily proven wrong? It's basically his word against Pincus' and we know that journalists often make incredibly dumb but innocent mistakes (and some not so innocent).

G'day.

I can't believe we are still at this.

Joe said this:
“The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.”

From your link, Tenet said:
"Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials."

Which makes what Joe said a lie. NOT just because it is false but because it shows the "intent to deceive". Remember our definition exchange?

What Joe said:
Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me." and "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

I never said he said she authorized the trip. And I don't really care what Rove said to Cooper. I do, however, know that Joe lied when he said "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" - or was he referring to another Valerie?

And I have steered away from the ad hominems, I would appreciate that you do the same. However, I will now bring the issue of my reading comprehension front and center by asking if I have misunderstood the CIA statement on the forged documents, and Joe's claims about them.

What Joe said:
"the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

What I thought the CIA said:
That Joe had NO way to even know what the names and dates were, so how could he know they were wrong and therefore glean that they must be forgeries. Get it? Joe attributes his knowledge of the documents “to news accounts"; but I have never heard anyone else talk about these accounts.

So, in the course of clearing up my comprehension on this; please include links to where Joe originally learned that the documents were forgeries. Since he had never seen them himself (Joe and the CIA agree on this point), they must have been highly credible sources for Joe to have pronounced the documents forgeries sight unseen.

And yet more comprehension problems for me; but you keep quoting Joe talking about Pincus and him kissing and making up. But your links go to Pincus claiming Joe misled him. And your question about why would Joe undermine his message on something so easily disproven - well, the same goes for Pincus. The answer is either a simple misunderstanding or political bais. But whose, Joe's or Pincus'?

G'night.

You can keep posting that rabit, and I'll just link to the thread with the rebuttal. It's the word of one man versus the reporting of 4 who still will not publicly support his version of events.

You're probably right, but why did the same CIA division send him to Niger in '99 shortly after he left the Clinton NSC in late '98 as the Africa-guy at a time when he was working as a consultant to put together trade deals between various African countries (like Niger and Turkey) and unnamed companies?
I do not agree. Go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

ionolsen26 I just don not have anything to say right now. www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

8bc9e4272038 Great work short url short url